In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
>> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:35:34 +0900
>>
>> >> cp437 cp720 cp737 cp775 cp850 cp851 cp852 cp855 cp857 cp860
>> >> cp861 cp862 cp863 cp864 cp865 cp866 cp869 cp874 cp1125
>>
>> Here, I forgot to add cp1251 and cp9XXs.
>>
>> >> But it seems that windows-XXXX are quite frequently called
>> >> as cpXXXX(*). If so, I'll register cpXXXXs as alises of the
>> >> corresponding windows-XXXXs, ok?
>>
>> > Won't that increase the confusion, which is IMHO already too high,
>> > between codepage.el and code-pages.el?
>>
>> They already support a coding system of the same name
>> (e.g. cp720) in a different way.
> Then I'd rather remove DOS codepages (as opposed to Windows codepages)
> from code-pages.el, than add more cpNNN encodings to it.
>> What kind of confusion does making aliases cp125[02345678] increase?
> Confusion between codepage.el and code-pages.el. They are different
> and subtly incompatible, but define symbols that are almost identical.
> As code-pages.el cannot be used in the MS-DOS port, we cannot throw
> away codepage.el. Thus, I think DOS codepages (whose names are cpNNN)
> should be provided only by codepage.el.
I don't know the distinction of cpNNN and cpNNNN.
If cpNNN are only for DOS and are never used in the other
environment, I agree that having cpNNN in code-pages.el is
useless.
But, as for cpNNNN,
<http://www.microsoft.com/typography/unicode/cscp.htm> says
that Windows uses codepages 125[012345678]. And if it's a
convention to refer to them by names cp125X, shouldn't we
provide those names for non-DOS users?
>> I didn't intend to change them. My suggestion is just to
>> make cp125[02345678] as an aliases of windows-125[02345678].
> My concern would be how a user is to know which library of the two she
> is using, or should use in a given situation.
DOS users use codepage.el. The other users use
code-pages.el. Isn't it clear?
> I already saw several confused users on help-gnu-emacs.
> So I think we need to sanitize these two libraries from
> each other's namespace. Adding cpNNN aliases would be a
> step in the wrong direction.
> Alternatively, someone who has more time than I do could add to
> code-pages.el what it is lacking now to fully support the MS-DOS port,
> and then we could toss codepage.el and add the aliases you asked about
> to code-pages.el.
Unfortunately, I, too, don't have a time merge them. :-(
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden